F-14B(?) Upgrade as featured in DCS 2025 video

[Joe1978]

hace 1 hora, RustBelt dijo:

Now, consider this, you're a smaller nation using them basically as a trophy for a war your fathers and grandfathers fought 50 years ago. All they have to do is fly around and look pretty. And compared to a nuclear development program, how much is it really costing them relatively to keep what 16 operating at 50% capacity?

Yes, I think I understand you in this case, but my note (and I hope no one is offended by it) is for all those who repeat the mantra that the F14 was expensive to maintain, and obviously it was, but I think these people don't know "why" it was expensive to maintain... they are simply repeating something they have heard without understanding anything.

 

En 13/2/2025 a las 19:47, Rhrich dijo:

This is very important. 
Yes, compared to todays planes with easy two screw panels the Tomcat requires more man hours, but those of us who where active in military aviation in the 70s and got to chat with USN personell then will remember that the Tomcat was actually very reliable when new. (I don’t remember numbers, but they where good). 

 

 

Did you know that in the factory, the bimetallic hoses of the hydraulic fluid were frozen by the liquid helium contracting the material and then coupled? In this way, when they expanded again they remained fixed. Problem: when you have to redo those lines and you don't have the materials or the means to do it correctly.

I repeat, I don't want to be pedantic or offend anyone.

Joe 

[RustBelt]

10 minutes ago, Joe1978 said:

Yes, I think I understand you in this case, but my note (and I hope no one is offended by it) is for all those who repeat the mantra that the F14 was expensive to maintain, and obviously it was, but I think these people don't know "why" it was expensive to maintain... they are simply repeating something they have heard without understanding anything.

 

 

Did you know that in the factory, the bimetallic hoses of the hydraulic fluid were frozen by the liquid helium contracting the material and then coupled? In this way, when they expanded again they remained fixed. Problem: when you have to redo those lines and you don't have the materials or the means to do it correctly.

I repeat, I don't want to be pedantic or offend anyone.

Joe 

Question is. Do those hoses HAVE to be fancy bi-metallic super hoses? Or is it just better if they are? Because there’s US Navy quality maintenance, and “good enough” maintenance. 
 

Also yea the Tomcat was also the tail end of pre-databus. So Everything had a dedicated wire or twelve running to and from it. That’s a massive time sink. As well as work vs working space. It’s one thing to take an engine out when you have space to move and stick stuff, it’s another to do it cramped into a corner of a carrier hangar. All that adds time a d time is money. So when Hornets came along everything else started looking crazy expensive. Tomcat especially due to size, exotic engineering choices, and the absolute miles and miles of rats nest of wire.

[draconus]

On 2/14/2025 at 10:59 PM, RustBelt said:

Tomcat especially due to size, exotic engineering choices, and the absolute miles and miles of rats nest of wire.

I don't buy the 10% size difference. Hornets have no wires either?

[Nealius]

Fewer miles and more organized than a rats nest is clearly the point. No one insinuated that the Hornet had zero wiring.

[Dragon1-1]

16 hours ago, draconus said:

I don't buy the 10% size difference.

Ty putting them on the boat and you'll buy it soon enough. It's not total size, but rather folded wingspan. The Tomcat is huge and takes up a lot of deck. The Hornet is shorter and folds up way better.

As for wiring, data busses reduce its length and simplify it by a lot. Especially combined with more advanced computers, the Hornet is simply much less manpower intensive. 

[westr]

On 2/13/2025 at 7:47 PM, Rhrich said:

This is very important. 
Yes, compared to todays planes with easy two screw panels the Tomcat requires more man hours, but those of us who where active in military aviation in the 70s and got to chat with USN personell then will remember that the Tomcat was actually very reliable when new. (I don’t remember numbers, but they where good). 

As a former leisureyachtsman I’m all to familiar with how the sea will destroy everything that isn’t 316. Living in the dry desert I would expect the 50 year old Iranian tomcats to have significantly less wear (from the elements) than the USN jets had when they where 10 years old. 

I have read precisely this F14 in its early life was reliable and I’m sure as the Superhornet ages over the years the number of maintenance hours needed to keep it airborne will increase it’s just how it goes. 

[Pipe]

On 1/18/2025 at 12:06 PM, Naquaii said:

No, and I've said this repeatedly here and in the HB Discord. None of what you list help us in modelling the APG-71. Yes, the IRST is an issue but the APG-71 is as big of an issue if not more.

None of this matters anymore since DCS became JMSU (just make s*** up)

Edited February 16 by Pipe

[RustBelt]

53 minutes ago, Pipe said:

None of this matters anymore since DCS became JMSU (just make s*** up)

DCS was always JMSU. They just hid it behind appeals for counter-proof. 

[Dragon1-1]

Yeah, except for all those pages upon pages of detailed technical documentation the teams always collect. I'm sure it's all just to look fancy on the shelves...

HB doesn't do JMSU. ED might have possibly given in to it for the F-35, but HB has its own standards. 

[draconus]

9 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

HB has its own standards

Yeah, about that...

and you'll find a few more like this.

[Dragon1-1]

28 minutes ago, draconus said:

and you'll find a few more like this.

Like what? HB making their module usable with hardware people actually have?

Besides, you can set a realistic throw in option if you do have such a throttle. The F-14 is unfinished in a few areas (still waiting for the EMER GEN and OBC checks, for instance), but that's different from things being made up.

Edited February 17 by Dragon1-1

[draconus]

24 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Like what?

Thought you'll never ask. My favorite list of unrealistic features:

cockpit switches sounds vol are increased, heard even with engines and ECS (decreased) running for the pilot in helmet (HB choice)
throttle throw range between idle and MIL is increased, MIL to MAX is decreased (HB choice)
pressurised gas bottle for the canopy is not implemented (HB refused)
Jester LANTIRN Q-eyeball and Q-Direct (HB choice)
Jester too good in some conditions (LANTIRN, missile and target spotting)
AIM-54C goes active in PD-STT launch, even when not losing lock (DCS/missile API limitation)
wheel chocks are placed instantly after commanding (HB choice)
AB and DLC on sound heard from cockpit (HB choice)
CVN launch at night reacts to binding instead of actual lights' state (HB choice)
aircraft can retract the gear on the ground and stand up again by lowering it!!! (bug/omission?)

[Dragon1-1]

Most of those are either things that are unfinished (anything with Jester) or compensating for the inherent unrealism of flying the jet while actually sitting in the chair. In fact, the lack of sound on the throttle light switch often leaves me wondering whether it actually toggled, as DCS is sometimes unreliable with physical switches. There's obviously no such issues in the real jet, where you feel the click. Likewise, AB and DLC coming on are easily felt through the seat in the real jet. While a toggle for those would probably be appreciated by those few who can feel their motion platform kick when they put the DLC on, I would expect this to be low priority.

You've listed a bunch of trivialities (and one rather silly bug), most of which are firmly in the "making the module usable with normal hardware" category. None of that involves making up a system out of wholecloth, which they'd have to do for the APG-71. The only thing that comes remotely close is the AIM-54C issue, and that's on ED's missile API. Yes, it would be nice if they didn't launch you at night if you didn't turn on at least one set of lights, but does it actually affect anything?

[draconus]

34 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

You've listed a bunch of trivialities (and one rather silly bug), most of which are firmly in the "making the module usable with normal hardware" category.

That's your opinion and maybe you're fine with "compensations" but I'm not and will happily remind my opinion whenever I hear about HB's "high standards".

[Cab]

1 minute ago, draconus said:

That's your opinion and maybe you're fine with "compensations" but I'm not and will happily remind my opinion whenever I hear about HB's "high standards".

Most of what you listed could be categorized as compromises. Life, as well as DCS, is full of them.

[Dragon1-1]

I say, if those are the biggest problems with the module, then HB's standards are high indeed. Also, worth noting that those compensations let as fly in a more realistic way. We're still at a disadvantage, most notably with the ability to sense the G-load. Very easy IRL (you know whether it's 4 or 5G squishing you into the seat), but very hard to reproduce in the sim with any kind of precision. Hardware solutions exist, but they're quite complex, and still not perfect. HB did a remarkable job reproducing the way the real jet would "talk" to you, but hardware is always going to be a brick wall against which such efforts will eventually crash.

Edited February 17 by Dragon1-1

[draconus]

21 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I say, if those are the biggest problems with the module, then HB's standards are high indeed.

Actually bugs and "to do" lists are much longer.

23 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Also, worth noting that those compensations let as fly in a more realistic way.

I don't agree. Other devs don't force compensations into their modules or at least provide an option. I can understand the sound effects in a blockbuster movie but expect much higher standards from a full fidelity simulation - different target audience.

[Dragon1-1]

55 minutes ago, draconus said:

Actually bugs and "to do" lists are much longer.

Yes, because both F-14 and F-4 are in EA. 

55 minutes ago, draconus said:

I don't agree. Other devs don't force compensations into their modules or at least provide an option. 

Other devs don't provide options - you have clicky switches and audible speedbrakes in ED modules, for example. You don't even get the option to adjust AB detent in most of them. Those sound effects are a replacement for tactile feedback, not for the sake of sounding cool. On the kind of rig described in your signature, as opposed to a full cockpit motion platform you obviously use now, not having those sounds would be fake difficulty. We want to be able to operate the jet the way it's supposed to be operated, not constantly look at switches to make sure they engaged.

If you think flying with what amounts to a full body loss of a sense of pressure is in any way realistic... well, I have bad news for you, pilots are generally expected to have all their senses in working order. Most people don't have a haptic suit (not that DCS supports one).

[draconus]

15 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Those sound effects are a replacement for tactile feedback, not for the sake of sounding cool.

Well, guess what, when I press a button I can already feel it with my finger. Fake sound is fake, unrealistic, period. If RL pilot could not hear it - I don't like it, I don't want it, I don't need it. You may like it, fine, but please don't try to persuade me into thinking what is better for me.

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Well, guess what, when I press a button I can already feel it with my finger. 

Lucky you to have buttons to press and switches to flip. Well, most others are stuck pushing keys on a keyboard, in VR audible feedback is often the only way to know your keystroke was registered without looking down. Like it or not, most people don't have nearly enough bindings to cover the important stuff.

Also, 3-position switches sometimes don't register properly if you move the real switch too quickly, the audio feedback is a lifesaver in those situations. Until DCS fixes problems of this sort, this will remain useful for, apparently, everyone who but you. In fact, for those without a full 3D audio system, bass shakers and proper headphones, the sound will always be "fake", since it's difficult to replicate a real aircraft's audio environment using just a pair of headphones.

All in all, HB's standard on audio quality is still rather high. RAZBAM, for instance, seems to barely care what their modules sound like. 

[MAXsenna]

Well, guess what, when I press a button I can already feel it with my finger. Fake sound is fake, unrealistic, period. If RL pilot could not hear it - I don't like it, I don't want it, I don't need it. You may like it, fine, but please don't try to persuade me into thinking what is better for me.

I don't get it. Doesn't the switches volume slider work in HB modules? It's of course not realistic, while I have it turned up for the same reason as Dragon1-1.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Naquaii]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

Actually bugs and "to do" lists are much longer.

I don't agree. Other devs don't force compensations into their modules or at least provide an option. I can understand the sound effects in a blockbuster movie but expect much higher standards from a full fidelity simulation - different target audience.

I'm honestly not sure if I should be offended that you equate that to just making <profanity> up...

16 hours ago, Pipe said:

None of this matters anymore since DCS became JMSU (just make s*** up)

I don't really see how any recent development changes how HB look at making modules honestly...

[draconus]

1 hour ago, Naquaii said:

I'm honestly not sure if I should be offended that you equate that to just making <profanity> up...

I don't so you shouldn't feel that way. The discussion went different way since the Pipe's post.

1 hour ago, MAXsenna said:

Doesn't the switches volume slider work in HB modules?

No, it does nothing for F-14.

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Well, most others are stuck pushing keys on a keyboard...

What I own is in my sig. Nothing more.

[JupiterJoe]

Did someone say 'to-do list'?

[Pipe]

12 hours ago, Naquaii said:

I'm honestly not sure if I should be offended that you equate that to just making <profanity> up...

I don't really see how any recent development changes how HB look at making modules honestly...

It may not change anything for HB or any third party devs, it certainly opens the door for "anything goes"

Now whos going to announce the Colonial Viper?

Edited February 18 by Pipe